Who Grimaced?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Matthew Shaw wrote:

> Could you please tell me if you grimace at the suggestion that the New
> Birth experience is explained as Acts 2.38.

I believe Acts 2:38 gives a concise description of the new birth.

I'll also state as listowner that this list is for Apostolics, and in
order to clear up any misunderstanding there may be, my definition of
Apostolic is one who understands the new birth to include faith in
Christ which will be evidenced by repentance, water baptism by
immersion in the name of Jesus, and spirit baptism as evidenced by
speaking in other tongues.  If you have another definition of
"Apostolic" that's fine and dandy, but for the purposes of this list,
that's what we are.

If you like hanging out with Apostolics (as defined above) but you
aren't one yourself, that's fine also.  If you want to discuss these
issues peacably, that's okay.  If you're interested only in telling me
how unloving, judgemental, and limiting-to-God I am, then I suggest
it's time to find another list.

To paint a broad brush and accuse the brethren of mean-spiritedness
just because they hold to the notion that one is saved by baptism is
ridiculous.

I hesitate use a "slippery-slope" argument, but an emotional appeal
that Christiandom must be saved because there are so many of them is
only a step away from Universalism, which declares that Christ died for
the sins of the world and thus his salvation is for all whether or not
they express any faith in Him or not.  This is contrary to Scripture.

I acknowledge that God *may* have a special dispensation of mercy apart
from that revealed to the apostles.  But that dispensation has not been
revealed in His Word, and to teach otherwise is at best irresponsible.

Richard "somebody say amen" Masoner
Champaign Illinois USA